Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1928–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Jacob Hartz Seed Co., Inc. v. Simrall & Simrallgreen2 sentences2024Ct. App. 2007) (stating that “a trial court commits no error [by] finding one expert more persuasive than another, as the trial court, sitting as the trier of fact, is the sole judge of the credibility of all witnesses, including experts” (citing Jacob Hartz, 807 So. 2d at 1274-75 (¶15))). 2020Likewise, “[t]he mere fact that testimony is disputed does not render it incredible.” Jacob Hartz Seed Co. v. Simrall & Simrall, 807 So. 2d 1271, 1275 (¶15) (Miss. | 3 | 3 |
Martin v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Callins v. State, 975 So.2d 219, 229 (¶ 23) (Miss.2008) (citing Martin v. State, 635 So.2d 1352, 1355 (Miss.1994)). 2008Martin, 635 So.2d at 1355 . | 1 | 3 |
Callins v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Callins v. State, 975 So.2d 219, 229 (¶ 23) (Miss.2008) (citing Martin v. State, 635 So.2d 1352, 1355 (Miss.1994)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moore v. State
green
2 sentences2008Citing Moore v. State, 394 So.2d 1336 (Miss.1981), we stated that if, during the plea colloquy, the trial court has informed the defendant that the court is not bound by any sentence recommendation, and if the record reflects that the trial court is not involved in the plea bargaining process and the prosecutor makes the recommended sentence pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court commits no error by not following the State's sentencing recommendation, so long as the sentence imposed is within the maximum limits prescribed by the applicable statute. 2005Citing Moore v. State, 394 So. 2d 1336 (Miss. 1981), we stated that if, during the plea colloquy, the trial court has informed the defendant that the court is not bound by any sentence recommendation, and if the record reflects that the trial court is not involved in the plea bargaining process and the prosecutor makes the recommended sentence pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court commits no error by not following the State’s sentencing recommendation, so long as the sentence imposed is within the maximum limits prescribed by the applicable statute. | 2 | 2005–2008 |
Peterson v. State
green
1 sentence1999Peterson v. State , 671 So.2d 647 , 656 (Miss. 1996). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Mabry v. State
neutral
1 sentence1928Mabry v. State, 71 Miss. 716 , 14 So. 267 ; Matthews v. State, 108 Miss. 72 , 66 So. 325 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Matthews v. State
neutral
2 sentences1928Mabry v. State, 71 Miss. 716 , 14 So. 267 ; Matthews v. State, 108 Miss. 72 , 66 So. 325 . 1928Mabry v. State, 71 Miss. 716 , 14 So. 267 ; Matthews v. State, 108 Miss. 72 , 66 So. 325 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.